How should the law treat a mentally disturbed person who commits a criminal offense? Should individuals whose mental faculties are impaired be held responsible for their actions? These questions are of concern to social scientists, to members of the legal profession, and to individuals who work with criminal offenders.

法律如何对待精神紊乱犯罪的人?智力能力受损的人是否应对其行为负责?这些问题受到社会科学家，法律界人士以及与犯罪嫌疑人合作的个人的关心。

Over the centuries, an important part of Western law has been the concept that a civilized society should not punish a person who is mentally incapable of controlling his or her conduct. In 1724, an English court maintained that a man was not responsible for an act if “he doth not know what he is doing, no more than . . . a wild beast.” Modern standards of legal responsibility, however, have been based on the McNaghten decision

of 1843. McNaghten, a Scotsman, suffered the paranoid delusion that he was being persecuted by the English prime minister, Sir Robert Peel. In an attempt to kill Peel, he mistakenly shot Peel’s secretary. Everyone involved in the trial was convinced by McNaghten’s senseless ramblings that he was insane. He was judged not responsible by reason of insanity and sent to a mental hospital, where he remained until his death. But Queen Victoria was not pleased with the verdict—apparently she felt that political assassinations should not be taken lightly—and called on the House of Lords to review the decision. The decision was upheld and rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into writing. The McNaghten Rule states that a defendant may be found “not guilty by reason of insanity” only if he were so severely disturbed at the time of his act that

he did not know what he was doing, or that if he did know what he was doing, he did not know it was wrong.

The McNaghten Rule was adopted in the United States, and the distinction of knowing right from wrong remained the basis of most decisions of legal insanity for over a century. Some states added to their statutes the doctrine of “irresistible impulse,” which recognizes that some mentally ill individuals may respond correctly when asked if a particular act is morally right or wrong but still be unable to control their behavior.

During the 1970s, a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute, which states:“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” The word substantial suggests that “any” incapacity is not enough to avoid criminal responsibility but that “total” incapacity is not required either. The use of the word appreciate rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have some understanding of the moral or legal consequences of their behavior before they can be held criminally responsible.

The problem of legal responsibility in the case of mentally disordered individuals is currently a topic of intense debate, and a number of legal and mental health professionals have recommended abolishing the insanity plea as a defense. The reasons for this recommendation are varied. Many experts believe that the current courtroom procedures—in which psychiatrists and psychologists for the prosecution and the defense present contradictory evidence as to the defendant’s mental state—are confusing to the jury and do little to help the cause of justice. Some also argue that the abuse of the insanity plea by clever lawyers has allowed too many criminals to escape conviction. Others claim that acquittal by reason of insanity often leads to a worse punishment (an indeterminate sentence )to an institution for the criminally insane that may confine a person for life) than being convicted and sent to prison (with the possibility of parole in a few years).

Despite the current controversy, actual cases of acquittal by reason of insanity are quite rare. Jurors seem reluctant to believe that people are not morally responsible for their acts, and lawyers, knowing that an insanity plea is apt to fail, tend to use it only as a last resort. In California in 1980, only 259 defendants (out of approximately 52,000)were successful in pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

3)From information in the third and fourth paragraphs (lines 35–58) it can reasonably be inferred that the legal definition of insanity was changed in the 1970s after:

A.federal courts won a dispute with state courts over a proposal made by the American Law Institute.

B. the doctrine of “irresistible impulse” was found to contradict accepted notions of justice.

C. proponents of the McNaghten Rule had been using the insanity defense in far too many murder trials.

D. several courts found that justice was not always best served when the McNaghten Rule was applied.

解析：这道题的正确答案是D。通过“Some states added to their statutes the doctrine of 'irresistible impulse”和“a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity”我们知道在某些情况下，司法不一定是最好的。

4)According to the explanation provided in the fourth paragraph (lines 43–58), use of the word appreciate in the phrase “to appreciate the wrongfulness” (lines 48–49) instead of know implies which of the following?

E. The difference between right and wrong is something people feel rather than know, which makes deciding legal responsibility difficult.

F. The difference between right and wrong is something people feel rather than know, which makes deciding legal responsibility difficult.

G. The word appreciate suggests that an action and that action’s implications must be understood for there to be legal responsibility.

H. An insane person would “know” something the way a sane person would “know” something, and be able to appreciate that knowledge, too.

解析：这道题的正确答案是G。从“The use of the word appreciate rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have some understanding of the moral or legal consequences of their behavior before they can be held criminally responsible. ”我们知道他使用了“欣赏”这个词，就意味着，在人们被追究刑事责任之前，他们“必须对他们行为的道德或法律后果有一定的了解。”

5)The passage indicates that the McNaghten case became the basis for future decisions about legal insanity because:

A. he House of Lords upheld the verdict of the court despite considerable political pressure.

B. here had been an increase in cases of murder involving mistaken identity arising from delusions.

C. McNaghten was unable to convince the jury at his trial that he was incoherent and insane.

D. McNaghten used a gun to commit murder, thus aggravating the crime in the jury’s mind.

解析：这道题的正确答案是A。从“But Queen Victoria was not pleased with the verdict—apparently she felt that political assassinations should not be taken lightly—and called on the House of Lords to review the decision. The decision was upheld and rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into writing. ”我们知道不顾相当大的政治压力，上议院维持了法院的裁决。

6)The passage states that McNaghten wanted to kill the English prime minister because the Scotsman thought that he:

E. would establish a confusing legal precedent.

F. had been rejected by Peel’s secretary.

G. would be better off in a mental hospital.

H. had been wronged by the minister.

解析：这道题的正确答案是H。从“a Scotsman, suffered the paranoid delusion that he was being persecuted by the English prime minister.”我们知道苏格兰人麦克纳恩特有一种偏执的错觉，认为自己正受到英国首相罗伯特·皮尔(Robert的迫害，所以答案选H。

7)According to the passage, one of the reasons some mental health and legal groups want to abolish the insanity defense is that:

A. even clever lawyers are confused about when to use and when not to use it.

B. juries that must sort out conflicting testimony become confused, and justice suffers.

C. when it is invoked, even if the case is won, the punishment often ends up being too lenient.

D. innocent defendants are too often being punished unfairly by unsympathetic juries.

解析：这道题的正确答案选B。从“a number of legal and mental health professionals have recommended abolishing the insanity plea as a defense.”和“Many experts believe that the current courtroom procedures…are confusing to the jury.”我们知道一些心理健康和法律团体想要废除精神错乱防卫的原因是目前的法庭程序令陪审团感到困惑。

8)The passage suggests that individuals who use the insanity defense:

E. are not permitted to do so unless it can be proved beforehand that they are really insane.

F. should be tried, convicted, and punished whether or not they are really insane.

G. are legally responsible for their actions even if a jury decides they are not guilty.

H. might risk a lifelong confinement even if acquitted by a jury, if the acquittal is based on insanity.

解析：这道题的正确答案是H。从“acquittal by reason of insanity often leads to a worse punishment (an indeterminate sentence to an institution for the criminally insane)我们知道，即使因为精神错乱而无罪释放是基于的话，陪审团也可能冒着终身监禁的危险。”

9)According to the passage, a lawyer contemplating using insanity as a defense for a client should do which of the following?

A. Carefully evaluate using the defense, since in actual practice it rarely works.

B. Assemble for trial a team of expert witnesses with a wide range of viewpoints on mental illness.

C. Make sure that the doctrine of “irresistible impulse” is not used by the prosecution in his or her client’s trial.

D. Recommend that the client be acquitted because he or she has been judged criminally insane by a doctor.

解析：这道题的正确答案是A。从“lawyers, knowing that an insanity plea is apt to fail, tend to use it only as a last resort”我们了解到，律师们知道，精神错乱的申诉容易失败，他们倾向于把它当作最后的手段。所以一个律师如果想用精神错乱作为一个客户的辩护应该仔细考虑一下。

10)One of the main points made in the last paragraph is that insanity pleas were:

E. unconvincing to most juries in California in 1980.

F. used in most cases in California in 1980.

G. often successful in California in 1980.

H. popular with lawyers in California in 1980.

解析：这道题的正确答案是E。从“actual cases of acquittal by reason of insanity are quite rare” 和“In California in 1980, only 259 defendants (out of approximately 52,000)were successful in pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.”我们知道1980年在加州的大多数陪审团都没有说服力。